if you could take your conversations out to the hallways or the choke rooms. the senator from new jersey has the floor. mr. menendez: thank you, mr. president. it would also not be in our national security interests because we clearly have to ensure that the straight of hormuz remains open and accessible. and we would be obligated under our nato agreements to respond should a shahab missile be launched against one of our allies. of course a shahab missile is an iranian missile that has the type of flight and capability to do so. and it is not in our national security interest because the last thing that we need is a nuclear arms race in a tinderbox of the world where countries, for example, like turkey and saudi arabia would feel obligated to follow suit if iran were to become a nuclear power. for all of those reasons, among others, it would not be in the national security interests of the united states. that achievement would jeopardize u.s. national security interests, would pose

an existential threat to the state of israel and would result in a regional nuclear arms race that would further destabilize the region. the news out of iran is dire. just this week, the director of the international atomic energy administration told the press that iran has not slowed its enrichment activities. the international atomic energy administration also suspects that iran has conducted live tests of conventional explosives that could be used to detonate a nuclear weapon at the military base, the facility the iranians have denied access to by the international atomic energy administration. between may and august of this year, iran doubled the number of centrifuges at its fortified facility buried deep inside a mountain to protect it against strikes. iran now has over 2,140

centrifuges for enriching uranium, and it continues to enrich to 20%. iran claims it needs this higher grade uranium for its peaceful nuclear program, but a country with peaceful ambitions doesn't enrich uranium in defiance of u.n. security council resolutions. it doesn't refuse to disclose its operations. it doesn't hide them inside a mountain. a peaceful nation doesn't breach the international inspections regime compelled by the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. and a peaceful nation is not one that pursues weaponization of missiles that can reach countries far beyond its borders. the sanctions that passed by this body last december unanimously are having a significant impact. the iranian currency has lost

much of its value, and iran's oil exports have dropped to a new daily low of 860,000 barrels per day, which is over a million barrels of oil per day less than a year ago. through our sanctions and the combined effort of the european union, we force the iranians back to the negotiating table. by passing these additional measures requiring the cessation of sales to and transactions within, iranian sectors that support proliferation, energy, shipping, shipbuilding and port sectors, as well as anyone on our specifically and specially designated national list, we will send a message to eye ran at the time confidence-building measures are over, and we do not want the iranian regime simply to believe they can toughen out the sanctions. this sends a clear message that

toughening it out won't work, and it will only get worse. if iran is serious about wanting to reach a diplomatic solution, then it must quickly and fully implement u.n. security council resolutions. it must stop enriching uranium, permit removal from its territory of enriched uranium, close the enrichment facility and submit to a robust inspections regime that includes inspections of the military facility. mr. president, clearly, sanctions are not the ultimate goal. they are only a means to a clear end, in this case preventing iran from becoming the next nuclear state and an existential threat to our ally the state of israel. let me highlight the major provisions of this amendment. first, this amendment designates iran's energy port shipping and

ship-building centers as enties of proliferation because of the role they play in supporting and funding iran's obvious proliferation activities. with the exception of permissible petroleum transactions under the existing sanctions regime from countries that have significantly reduced their purchases of oil from iran, these sectors will now be off-limits. we will sanction any transactions with these sectors and we will block the property and any third party that engages in transactions with them. second, we impose sanctions on persons selling or supplying a defined list of commodities to iran, commodities that are relevant to iran's ship-building and nuclear sectors such as graphite, aluminum, steel, met liewrnlg cal coal -- metallurgical coal and software for integrating industrial processes. we also will prevent iran from

circumstance couple venting sanctions on its central bank that this congress and the president signed by receiving payments in precious metals. third, we designate the islamic republic of iran broadcasting entity and its president as human rights abusers for their broadcasting of forced television confessions and show trials, thereby blocking their assets and preventing others from doing business with the irib. to address concerns about access to humanitarian goods in iran, which is a very real and serious concern, we have provided for exceptions for the provision and sale to iran of food, agricultural commodities, medicine, medical devices and other humanitarian goods, and we have imposed new human rights sanctions on those in iran who are engaged in corruption or the diversion of resources related to these goods and that are preventing them from reaching the iranian people.

mr. president, our message is clear. the window is closing. the time for the waiting game is over. yes, our sanctions are having a demonstrable effect on the iranian economy, but iran is still working just as hard to develop nuclear weapons. iran has to decide what it will do. will it continue down the path to proliferation and risk further crushing economic sanctions or will it end the madness and negotiate a responsible end to its nuclear ambition? the waiting game is over, and in the end, one way or the other, iran will not be allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon that could threaten the united states national interests and security interests, israel, the region and the world. i want to thank senator kirk who we have worked with on this issue for quite some time, senator lieberman, senator casey and many others who have shared

their -- not only their interests, their views and for which we have tried to incorporate those views. i hope that tomorrow when we cast the vote, it will be the type of unanimous vote that this senate passed nearly a year ago that ultimately sends a very clear message to the iranians that if you seek to evade, if you seek to avoid, if you think that you can wait out the process, you're wrong, and that is in essence what we are doing through this amendment. it is in essence why we believe it is so critical to move forward to send a very clear message to the iranians. this is about the national security of the united states. it's about the existential challenge to the state of israel, our ally, and it is the

best of the bipartisan effort that we have seen in the senate, and with that, i look forward to tomorrow's vote. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor and observe the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. mccain: mr. president -- the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: i ask that the

quorum call be suspended. mr. president, what's the parliamentary situation? the presiding officer: menendez amendment 3230 is pending. mr. mccain: i intend to speak on that shortly. mr. levin: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that further proceedings on the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. levin: mr. president, what senator mccain and i and our staffs are going to attempt to do tomorrow morning and -- is that shortly after the fourth vote that is now scheduled, the fourth roll call vote, we hope to be able to announce a finite list of amendments which would need to be disposed of before completion of this bill. that's going to be our goal. and we'll repeat that goal first thing in the morning. but it's important that people know -- that is now something that is important that we do because we expect there will be a cloture vote tomorrow --

excuse me, a cloture petition tomorrow, it will be filed, and if we can put together a finite list of amendments that need to be disposed of before final passage of this bill, that step may be unnecessary. mr. mccain: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: we have made great progress. we've addressed the major issues concerning this legislation, although there are certainly other issues that our colleagues are -- feel are very important. but we really should have reached a point now after three days that we put together a list of amendments, we can decide whether those amendments can be agreed upon, dropped, or voted on, but it's time we put that list together, and obviously with that being accomplished, we could get this thing wrapped up without having to go through the process of cloture and the intervening hours and all of the

parliamentary procedures that are -- that are embodied in that process. i thank the chairman and thank the chair. mr. levin: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. levin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: i would ask that further proceedings of the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. levin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding adoption of durbin amendment 3199, that it be modified with the changes at the desk. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. levin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten -- excuse me, for up to ten

minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. levin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the commerce committee be discharged from further consideration of s. 3542 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 3542, a bill to authorize the assistant secretary of homeland security, transportation security administration to modify screening requirements for checked baggage arriving from preclearance airports and for other purposes. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. levin: i further ask that the klobuchar amendment which is at the desk be agreed to, the bill as amended be a third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, that any statements relating to the measure be printed at the appropriate place in the record as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. levin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the help committee be discharged from further consideration of s. res. 600, the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report.

the clerk: senate resolution 600, supporting the goals and ideals of american diabetes month. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. levin: i further ask, mr. president, that the resolution be agreed to, the amendment to the preamble which is at the desk be agreed to, the preamble as amended be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table with no intervening action or debate and that any amendments relating to the measure be printed at the appropriate place in the record as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. levin: i now ask unanimous consent, mr. president, that the senate proceed to consideration of s. res. 6303, which was submitted early -- 603, which was submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 603, designating the week of november 26-november 30, 2012, as national nurse managed health clinic week. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. levin: i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table with no intervening action or debate and any related

statements be printed in the record as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. levin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to consideration of s. res. 604, submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 6 604, relative to the death of the hones honorable rar wen b. , former united states senator for the state of new hampshire. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate shall proceed to the measure. mr. levin: i ask unanimous consent, mr. president, the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate and any statements relating to the matter be placed in the record as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. levin: i ask unanimous consent, mr. president, the following blocks of time be set aside for the purpose of statements from retiring senators 11:30-12:30 a.m. tuesday, december 4; 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. thursday, december 6; and 12:00 noon to 1:00 p.m. wednesday, december 12. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. levin: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it juniorly until 9:15 a.m. on friday, november 30, 2012. that following the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day and that following any leader remarks, the senate resume consideration of s. 3254, the d.o.d. authorization act. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. levin: there will be up to four roll call votes at 9:30 a.m. tomorrow. mr. president, if there's no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the provisions of s. res. 604, as a further mark of respect to the memory of former senator warren b. rudman of new hampshire. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until 9:15 tomorrow and that it does so under the provision of s. res. 604, as a further mark of respect to the memory of former senator warren b. rudman of new senator warren b. rudman of new

>> on 16 or 17 bases in the united states we have military runs. the average cost to educate a child in a school per year is $50,000. almost four times what the rest of the public education costs. in the vast majority of our pcs to use public schools. we could take the money we're

spending today, three of republics of system 14,000 per child and save billions of dollars per year for the same or better outcomes. >> more justice brand love is then delivered its final report on british media part system at its been called for a new regulatory body to oversee press behavior. the report follows a year-long investigation of phone hacking and other allegations and rupert

murdoch's tabloid newspaper, news of the world. >> good afternoon. for the seventh time in less than 70 years, there is a new route port commissioned by the government can't make dealing with concerns about the press. it was sparked by public repulsion about a single act, a hacking of the mobile phone for murdered teenager. from that beginning, it is expanded to cover the culture, practices and ethics of the press and misconduct relations to public, police and

politicians. this inquiry has been the most concentrated look at the press this country has ever seen. in nearly nine months, for hearings, 337 witnesses gave evidence in person and the statements of nearly 300 others were read into the record. i am grateful to all who have contributed. the report will not be published on the inquiry website, which also carries the statements, the exhibits in both transcripts and video coverage of the evidence. for over 40 years, as a barrister and a judge, i've watched the price of inaction day after day in the courts in which a product is. i know how vital the price is.

all of it is guiding interest of the public as a critical witness to events, as the standard error for those who have no one else to speak up for them. nothing in the evidence i have heard or read has changed that view. the press operating freely and in the public interest is one of the true safeguard of our democracy. as a result, it holds a privileged and powerful place in our society. but this power and influence carries with it responsibilities to the public interest in his name and exercises these privileges. unfortunately, as the evidence has shown beyond doubt on too many occasions, those responsibilities, along with the

editor's code of conduct, which the price wrote and promoted have simply been ignored. this has damaged the public interest, caused real hardship and on occasion, re-tactic in the lives of innocent people. what the press do and say it's no ordinary exercise of free speech. it operates very differently from blogs on the internet and other social media such as twitter. its impact is uniquely powerful. a free price in a democracy holds power to account. but what if you with a few honorable exceptions, the u.k. press has not performed a vital role in the case of its own

power. none of this however is to conclude the press freedom in britain hard-won over 300 years ago should be jeopardized. on the contrary, it should not. i remain firmly of the belief of the british press. i repeat, all of it serves the country very well for the vast majority of the time. there are truly countless examples of great journalism, great investigations and great campaigns. not that it is necessary or per route for the price always to be pursuing serious stories for it to work in the public interest. some of its most important functions are to inform, educate and entertain. and when doing so, to be irreverent, unruly and

opinionated. but none of that is beyond the challenge. i know of no organized profession, industry or trade in which the serious failings of the few are overlooked or ignored because of the good done by the many. words so in any other case, the press would be the very first to expose such product says. the purpose of this inquiry has been twofold. first, it has been to do just that, to expose precisely what has been happening. secondly, in this to make recommendations for change. as to change, almost everyone must accept the press complaints commission has failed in the

past if indeed it ever saw itself as having such a task of keeping the price to its responsibilities to the public generally and to the individuals unfairly damaged. there must be change. let me say this very clearly. not a single witness proposed that either government or politicians, all of whom the press o. to account should be involved in the regulation of the press. neither would i make any such suggestion. let me deal very briefly with the idea that this inquiry might not have been necessary if the criminal law that it simply operated more effectively. there were errors in aspects of the way the phone hacking investigation was managed in 2006 and in relation to the failure to undertake reader

reviews. and there are some problems that need to be fixed with the criminal and civil laws and also in relation to data protection. in particular, exemplary damages should be available for all media talks, including breach of privacy. in the end, however, law enforcement can never be the whole answer. as we've seen, that is because the lawbreaking in this area is typically hidden. but does it comes unaware of what has happened. even if it were possible, and it is certainly not desirable putting a policeman in every room is no sort of answer. in any event, the powers of law enforcement are significantly limited because of the privileges the law provides to the press, including protection of his sources.

that is specifically can perform its role in the public interest. what is needed there is a genuinely independent and effective system itself regulated standards for publications to the public interest. at the very start of the inquiry and throughout, i'd encourage the industry to work together to find a mechanism for independent self-regulation, the woodwork for them and would work for the public. lured black of brentwood stepped forward to lead the effort. they put forward the idea of a model based on contractual obligations among press organizations. on monday afternoon of this week, with the report being printed, i received two separate

submissions from within the press, telling me that most of the industry was now prepared to sign self-regulation contracts. the first submission recognizes the possibility of improvements to the model proposed so far. this i can't expresses confidence that the model proposed by lord black and lord hunt addresses criticisms made at the inquiry. unfortunately, however, although this model is an improvement on pcc, in my view, it does not come close to delivering in the words of the submission itself quotes regulation that is the those genuinely free and independent, both of the industry it regulates and political control.

any model with editors on the main lord is simply not independent of the industry to anything approaching the degree required two warrants public confidence. it is still the industry murkiness down homework. nor is the model proposed stable or robust for longer-term future. the press needs to establish a new regulatory body, which is truly independent of industry leaders and of government and the politicians. it must promote high standards of journalism and protect both the public interest in the rights and liberties of individuals. it should set and enforce standards. here individual complaints and provide a fair, quick and inexpensive arbitration service to do with civil law claims. the chair and other members of

the body must be independent and appointed by a figure and open process. it must comprise the majority of members who are independent of the press. it should not include any serving editor or politician. that could be readily achieved by an appointment panel, which could itself include a current editor with a substantial majority demonstrably independent of the press and the politicians. in the report, i explained you might be involved. although i make some recommendations in this area, it is absolutely not my role to seek to establish a new press standards code were to decide how an independent self regulatory body would go about his business. as to standards code, i

recommend the involvement of an industry committee, which could include an involved serving editor's. that committee would advise the regulatory body should be a process of public consultation. in my report, i also address the need for incentives to be put in place for all in the industry to sign up for this new regulatory system. guaranteed independence, long-term stability and genuine benefits for the industry cannot be realized without legislation. so much misleading speculation and misinformation is being spread about the prospect of new legislation. 90 to make a few things very clear. i am proposing it only -- only for the narrow purpose of

recognizing a new, independent of the self regulatory system. it is important to be clear what this legislation would not do. it would not establish a body to regulate the press. that is for the press itself to organize and to do. so what would this legislation achieves? three things. it would enshrine for the first time a legal duty on the government to protect the freedom of the press. secondly, it would provide an independent process to recognize the new self regulatory body and thereby reassure the public of its independence and efficacy. thirdly, it would provide new and tangible benefits for the press. as members of the body,

newspapers could show that they act in good faith and his sword to with standards based on the public interest. decisions of the new recognized regulator could create precedent, which could in turn help a court in civil actions. in addition, existence of a formerly recognized free arbitration system is likely to provide a powerful argument as the cause should they claim you decide not use the system or conversely if a newspaper is not a member. in my view, the benefits of membership should be obvious to all. this is not and cannot reasonably or fairly be cared arise as statutory regulation of the press. i am proposing independent regulation of the press organized by the press itself

with the statutory prices to support press freedom provides stability and guarantee for the public that this new body is independent and effective. i firmly believe that these recommendations for self-regulation or in the best interests of the public and the press. they have not been influenced by any political or other agenda but based on evidence i have heard by what i believe is there and write for everyone. what is love given the public interest role for which the press is rightly proud, i do not think it is a bit inside heard from the public in general would accept anything less. turning to the police, the relationship to train police and public is vital to the essential

requirements of policing that consent and the press have a very important part to play in its promotion. although there has been a limit on how far it is impossible for the the inquiry to go, because of the need that to prejudice any ongoing investigations, whatever operation elveden might reveal, i have not seen any evidence to sit just corruption by the press is a widespread problem in relation to the police. however, while bradley endorsing the approach of recent reviews into police governance, i identified a number of issues that i recommend should be addressed. as for the press and politicians, the overwhelming evidence is that relations on a day-to-day basis are an robust,

good health and performing the vital public interest functions of the free press and a vigorous democracy. everyday interactions between journalists and politicians cause no concern. this senior politicians across the spectrum have accepted a number of respects the relationship between politics and the press has been too close. i agree. what i am concerned about is a particular kind of lobbying can do it out of the public eye, through the relationships of policymakers and visible media who stand to gain or lose from the policy being considered. that gives rise to the understandable perception of the power of the press to effective political fortune may be used to influence the policy.

this in turn undermines public trust and confidence in decisions on media matters being taken genuinely and the public interest. this is a long-standing issue, one which over the years and across the political spectrum has repeatedly resulted in opportunities being menaced to respond to probe rightly to legitimate public concern about press behavior. the press is of course entitled to lobby in its own interests, whether editorially or through the access and enjoys. it is however the responsibility of the politicians to ensure the decisions that are taken are seen to be based on the public interest as a whole. this means the extent to which there lobbied by the press

should be opened and transparent in the public should therefore have a basic understanding of the process. in this limited area, i have recommended that consideration should be given to a number of steps to create greater transparency about this influential relationships at the top of puppet in the media can so address the issue of public reception and trust and confidence. a good start would be for those steps towards greater transparency to be taken in relation to press lobbying about this report. similar considerations apply to the role of ministers when taking decisions about the public interest in relation to media ownership. i believe that democratically accountable ministers are the

right people to make these decisions. however, i have made recommendations as to how the process can be made much more transparent to ensure that in future there should be no risk, even if the perception of bias. it is essential that the u.k. retains a plural media with a genuine diversity of ownership approach and perspective. in my opinion, the competition authorities should have the means to keep levels of plurality under review and be equipped with a full range of remedies to deal with concerns. i must now place on record my thanks to all who participate in the inquiry. these are the assessors who advised areas of expertise and

was selected by the government with the support of the leader of the opposition and the prime minister's words that i quote for their complete independence from all interested parties. robert jay present in such a massive volume of evidence so efficiently. everyone in the inquiry team who has worked so hard to achieve so much in such limited time. the core participants and their lawyers and most of all the public web provided evidence, views and submissions. as i said at the beginning, this is the seventh time in less than 70 years that these issues have been interest. no one can think that it makes any sense to contemplate and

eight. i hope that my recommendations will be treated in exactly the same cross party spirit, which led to the setting up of the inquiry in the first place annually to a cross party response. i believe the report can and must speak for itself. to that end, i will be making no further comment. nobody will be speaking for me about its contents either now or in the future. the ball moves back into the politicians court. they must now decide who guards the guardians. thank you all very much. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> for more information on the

train and inquiry, go to leveson inquiry.word/u.k. from there you can go to the full report. now reaction from prime minister david cameron to the leveson report to the prime minister of greece at the led to proposals but is not a group or postals for new media laws. the prime minister spoke at the house of commons and took questions from members. >> order. statements of the prime minister. >> thank you, mr. speaker paiva trepanation i'd like to make a statement on the report for insured losses leveson. we should consider the victims. we should remember how the parents of millie dowler at their most honorable moments had their daughter's phone hacked and were followed and photographed. christopher at jefferies reputation was destroyed at the

mother of madeleine mccann had her had her diary printed without her permission and how she and her husband were false he accused of keeping their daughter's body in the freezer. these victims and many other innocent people who have never sought the limelight have suffered in the way we can barely begin to imagine. that is on a summer asked lord justice leveson to lead an inquiry. at the power to see any documented some in any witness under oath to be examined by a barrister in public. it has been asked lord justice leveson says the most public and concentrated look at the price this country has seen in a day to think lord justice leveson and his entire team for the work they've undertaken. mr. speaker, lord justice leveson makes recommendations in three areas. relationship between press and the police come the relationship between the press and politicians and relationship between the press and the public to take each in turn.

first the press and the police. for justice leveson make sure he does have any basis for challenging the police, but he does raise a number of areas that were cause for public concern such as tipoffs of the record briefings and more broadly excessive proximity between the press and police. he makes a number of recommendations including national guidance on appropriate guessing hospitality, record-keeping of contact to train senior police officers and journalists and a 12 month cooling off period for senior police service employed by the press. these are designed to break the perception of a cozy relationship between the press and police were support these recommendations. mr. speaker, when i set up this inquiry also said there would be a second part to investigate wrongdoing in the press and police including conduct of the first police investigation. the second stage cannot go ahead

until the current criminal proceedings have concluded that we remain committed to the inquiry as first established. next relationship between politicians and media. as for justice leveson has found over the last 30 to 35 years and probably much longer the political parties of u.k. national government in u.k. official opposition have had were developed to close a relationship with the press in a way that has not been in the public interest. i made this point last summer when i set up this inquiry and at the same time start reforms to improve transparency. this is the first government to publish details of meetings between senior politicians on proprietary schema editors are senior executives as lord justice leveson represents in his report. he disposes further information on the overall level of interaction between politicians and press that would apply to all parties in on the government's behalf i can say we accept the recommendation. mr. speaker, during the course

of the inquiry a number of allegations were made and i want to do with them directly. first, my party struck a deal with news international. this is an allegation repeated again and again on the floor of the south of the inquiry itself. our justice leveson looked at this in detail and rejected the allegation emphatically. let me read his conclusion and i quote the evidence does not establish anything resembling a deal whereby news international support was traded for the expectation of policy favors. the stupidity made allegations included members of the house and the former prime minister should not knowledge they were wrong. second is alleged to give a right honorable friend the health secretary the responsibility of this big sky big to fix the outcome. our justice by the sensei is clearly the evidence does not begin to support the conclusion

the choice of mr. hunt was the product of improper media pressure, still less an attempt to guarantee a particular come to the process. another allegation repeated the made in again shown to be wrong. third, criticisms the secretary had raided the handling of the beast. today's report rejects that as well pick by right honorable friend says put in place robust systems to ensure the remaining stages of the bid would be handed with fairness, impartiality and transparency. indeed, the justice by the dissent concludes by right honorable friends extensive reliance on external advice was a wise and effective means of helping him to keep to the statutory test in concludes there is no credible evidence of actual bias. of course as my right honorable friend has said there's lessons to learn about how quasijudicial decisions are made of a muffler learn this. but right honorable friend has endured allegations with great dignity.

this report confirms we on this side of the house belonged along we were right to stand by him. let me also say this. for justice leveson find some respects to my friend the business secretary that he acted or script of scaring impartiality. next and most important of all, let me turn to it tortures islamists and says about the relationship between the press and the public. as he says very clearly, even after 16 months of this inquiry, he remained cynical, firmly of the belief the british press, all of this serves the country very well to the vast majority of the time. but on the culture practices and ethics of some in the press, his words are very stark. he finds there have been too many times when she seen the story parts of the press of acted as if it's own code which you wrote simply did not exist. he cites press behavior that at times can only be described as outrageous.

he catalogs the number of examples of such behavior going whiter than phone hacking. refers to a recklessness in prioritizing sensational stories almost irrespective of behind the stories may cause and the rights of those who defect it. he finds when the story is just too big from the public appetite to great there's been significant in reckless disregard for accuracy and he reports the cultural tenant be with and the press to vigorously dismiss complainants almost as a matter of course. mr. speaker, in a free society the press are subject to criminal law, civil law and requirements for data protection but there should be a proper regulatory system as well to ensure that standards are upheld, complaints are heard and there is a proper redress for those who have been wronged. that is what the current system should have delivered. it is not. as lord justice levinson says, the complaints commission is

neither regulator are fit for purpose to fulfill the responsibility and that is why changes are urgently needed. mr. speaker, we welcome the fact the press industry themselves have put forward their proposals for a new system of regulation. but we agree with our justice leveson that these proposals do not go far enough. mr. speaker, in volume four of the report, lord justice leveson sent proposals for independent self-regulation organized by the media. he details the key requirements and independent self-regulatory body should meet including independence of appointments and pending, the standards code and arbitration service and a speedy complaint handling mechanism. crucially it must have the power to demand up front apologies and impose a 2 million-pound fines. these are the leveson principles. they're the central recommendations of the report. if they can be put in place can we truly will have a regulatory

system that delivers public confidence, justice for the victims in a step change in the press is regulated in our country. i accept these principles and i hope the whole house will come in behind them the owner should not be in the press to implement them at home in them critically. supported this, lord justice leveson makes important proposals. he proposes changes to the data protection act that would reduce the special treatment that journalists are afforded when dealing with personal data. we must consider this very carefully, particularly the impact on investigative journalist and. while i've only been able to make preliminary investigations about this, i'm instinctively concerned about this proposal. second, he proposes changes to establish a system of incentives for each newspaper to take part of the system of independent regulation. i agree there should be incentives in the least those funds he said such as the word

of cost and exemplary damages and litigation could be effective. he goes on to propose legislation that would help deliver this incentives but also that would crucially provide, and i quote, an independent process to recognize the new self-regulatory body. this would, reassure the public that the basic requirements of independence and effectiveness were met and would continue to do that. i have some serious concerns and misgivings on this recommendation. they break down into issues of principle, practicality and necessity. the issue of principle as for the first time that would've crossed the rubicon of writing elements of press speculation into the law of the land. we should be wary of any legislation that has potential to infringe free speech in a free press. in this house, which has been a bulwark of democracy for centuries, we should think very, very carefully before crossing this line. on the grounds of practicality,

no matter how simple intention of the new law the legislation required to underpin the regulatory body would become more complicated. paragraph 71 and 72 in the executive summary begin to set up what would be needed to legislation. it refers to validating standards code and recognizing powers of the new body. if you turn to page 1772 in volume four of the full report, says this about the new law. it must identify those legitimate requirements and provide a mechanism to recognize and certified in your body needs them. the dangers this would create a vehicle for politicians whether today or sometime in the future to impose regulation obligations on the press, something where justice leveson himself wishes to avoid. on the grounds of necessity not convinced the statute is necessary to achieve where justice leveson subject is. i believe there may be

alternative options for putting in place incentives providing reassurance to the public in ensuring the leveson principles of regulation are put in place and these options should be explored. mr. speaker, these questions including those of data protection are fundamental questions we must resolve. i therefore by the deputy prime minister and leader of the opposition to join a cross party talks starting immediately after the statement appeared a regulatory system that complies with the leveson principle should be put in place rapidly. i favor giving the press and limited period of time which to do this. they do not need to wait for all the other elements of lord justice leveson's report to be implemented. while no one wants to see full statute regulation, let me stress the status quo is not an option. we should be determined is the lord justice leveson principles implemented. there's much we in this country can be proud of. the oldest democracy in the world, freedom of speech come a

free press, frank and healthy public debate. but this report lays bear the system of price regulation we have is badly broken and is let down victims badly. our responsibility is to fix this. the task is to build a system of press speculation that supports our great traditions of investigative journalism is free speech protects the rights of the vulnerable and innocent and commands confidence of the whole country and i commend this statement to the house. >> david miller band. >> mr. speaker, can i start rethinking the prime minister for his statement and say straight away in the and weeks ahead i will be seeking to convince him in the house of commons we should put our faith in the recommendations of our justice carnahan delivered today and the prime minister is not just there but i hope to convince him of the days ahead but that is where we should go. we should put our trust in lord

justice leveson's. i may pay tribute and thank you lord justice leveson disdain for the painstaking impartial and comprehensive way they've conducted this inquiry. think where justice office leveson for the way he conducted his report today. most about to join the prime minister in paying tribute to innocent victims who gave evidence to inquiry. people who did not seek to be in the public eye, who suffered d+ in brief mncs further trauma at hands of the press. bob and sally dollar did mr. speaker, it's easy to forget how about the revelations about what happened to them and their daughter and their courage in speaking out, we would simply not be here today. jerry and kate mccann who suffered so much in shows so much courage, his daughter serving the same in her private diary was published by "news of

the world." mr. speaker, they gave evidence to serve the wider public interest and i'm sure the whole house pays tribute to their courage. it is they who must be at the forefront of our minds today. mr. speaker, much is written about the reason for this inquiry. a free press is essential to a functioning democracy. the press must be a little hold the powerful, especially politicians to account without fear or favor. that is part of the character of our country. at the same time i do not want to live in a country where can i see families like the mccann is can see their lives torn apart for profit and powerful interests in the press know they won't be held to account. this is about the character of our country. mr. speaker, it turns out there never was just one rogue reporter. lord justice leveson could lose a whole range of practices from

phone hacking to surveillance to harassment to other wrongful behavior worldwide spread all in breach of the code by which the press is supposed to abide. i recognize the many decent e.ople who work at our country's i recognize the many decent people who work at our country's newspapers and not every newspaper did wrong. and not every newspaper did wrong. and not every newspaper did wrong. is it is argued that the operations and the culture practices of the prices as a whole. he says i wholly reject this analysis. this will not come as a surprise to many people in this house, that is where justice leveson concludes, there has been a persistent failure by politicians to respond to public concerns about the culture practices and ethics of the press. mr. speaker, we must take our responsibility for that and the publication of the report is a moment when we must put that right upholding freedom of the press in guaranteeing protection and redress for the citizens

good as the prime minister himself for the same at the leveson inquiry, if the family like the dowsers change the way they were treated would've done have done their job properly. i agree. i may be clear about where justice leveson's proposal and why they are different from the present system in wake of the day should be accepted in their entirety. he proposes what he called a regulator with effect to power to provide redress for victims of abuse. but he also gives the responsibility for establishing the assistant to the price as now. that's a statute is important because it provides the crucial new guarantee which we've never had before. he recommends the media regulator off calm ensures the system established passes the test that we would all want applied, that is truly independent and provides effective protection of people like the mccann's and dowsers.

both the role and criteria of independence in effect events set out in statute in this parliament. that's why we can get to truly independent regulation of the press guaranteed by law. i believe lord justice leveson's proposals are measured, reasonable and proportionate. we on the side unequivocally endorse the principles set out in the central recommendations. we support what justice leveson revered as the body to carry the task of wreck shunted a regulator. we support his proposal for the house to lay down the role and endorse the four justice leveson's proposal in the regulatory body must meet to set it in statute. without that there cannot be the change we need a more justice leveson is 100% clear about that in his report. mr. speaker, let me just say

this. lord justice leveson has made every effort to meet the concerns of the industry. there will be some people he said the report does not go far enough frankly. they will say work if you suppress onofre. i believe the price of a major responsibility to cooperate with the system, a comprehensive reform of the kind where justice leveson proposes. he also says, mr. speaker, if we cannot achieve a comprehensive system involving all major newspapers, we should doubt the necessary alternatives, which is direct statutory regulation. i believe lord justice leveson has genuinely listened to what the press have said. he acted without most responsibility and proprietor should now do the same. let me ask you say that lord justice leveson also reaches important questions on the need to promote influence in the

media. he proposes there should be continuous court at the degree of media plurality and a lower cap than currently provided competition will with the prime minister is set to reply this forward. lord justice leveson make specific meetings and contacts in politicians in the west. they should be considered as an immediate need. the proposal has indeed that the prime minister did earlier on. mr. speaker, let me say welcome the prime minister is offered the cross party talks on implementation of these recommendations and i'm grateful for the conversation severity had. let me say to him, peace talks must be about implementing these recommendations, not whether we implement them. i will have the swift timetable for implementation to legislate in the parliament in may 2013 with a new system up and running

by the end of this parliament and by the latest 2015. by the end of january next year, we should have an opportunity will make this happen a necessary to endorse and proceed with the leveson proposals. i believe, mr. speaker, we should and can move forward together wholeheartedly now. we've had 70 years, seven reported which have gone nowhere. that was the time to act. 20 years ago, let's remind the house that the home secretary said 20 years ago. this is the last chance for the industry to establish and affect the non-satisfactory system of regulation. mr. speaker, the case is compelling. the evidence is overwhelming. this is a once in a generation opportunity to make change the public can trust. there can be no more last chance solution. and did not team, let us remember the words of bob and

sally dowler. there's nothing that can rectify damage being done to her family. all we can hope for is a positive outcome so other families are not affected in the way we have been. mr. speaker on behalf of every decent british system to protection for people like the dollars to want a truly free press from a press that can expose the abuse of power without abusing its own. we must act. >> and i think the gentleman for his response? history to thank for the work done in the report is produced. he's absolutely right to talk about the innocent victims and the enormous courage they've shown by appearing in front of this inquiry and telling stories. he's also right to mention leveson finding that all politicians going over decades state responsibility for relationship between politicians and the press that got too close. a couple of points on the things he said. i know he said he did strongly

support carrying out the tasks of whether the regulatory system was compliant. i think this is something we need to look at the cross party discussions because it is very important we demonstrate however we go about this commander of independence of this regulatory system. of course the chair is appointed by my right honorable friend from the secretary of state. we have to think about that. i also think we have to consider a very powerful regulatory oddy and we should reduce concentrations of power. so this is something we might want to discuss. one issue he didn't address, but again i hope we can address in the cross party reduction is this issue of the data protection law changes. i do think we shouldn't respond into rackety wake for something as complex as this. we do not want to put in something that rex proper investigative journalism in our

country. on the issue of statutory regulation, i would make the point that leveson rightly rejects statutory regulation and says we must move from the status quo at diplomat principles of this report. i agree that it's absolutely vital. we don't want to be left in the position of having statutory regulation as alternative to proposals that he sets out. i completely agree that talks could be business. we don't have to be to implement this report until those discussions are had. this report is to be implemented by the press taking the steps set out in this report to put in place the independent regulation that leveson speaks about. they can start that right now. >> order, much interest and keen to accommodate and i would exhort colleagues pleased to help meet to help them by asking short questions without preamble. end of the prime minister will oblige with pithy replies.

sir peter topsail. >> good lord justice leveson make any comments on the proprietorship of newspapers? surely one fat during the depression of press standard is that some others in national newspapers to be bad men and sometimes foreigners with an ingrained hostility towards britain and their editors now that they can only keep their jobs by achieving the required levels of leadership and advertising revenue by populist sensationalist than shared ownership or just newspapers be confined to british nationals who are judged to be fit and proper for that role.

>> thank you, mr. speaker. the report goes into an arms detailed the history of the press and ownership of the price. ..

you. >> the system is not a compulsory system. it doesn't guarantee that everyone takes part. where we are in complete agreement is that the lord

justices on independent regulation. that is what i want pretty set on principles of strong regulation of the we have to put in place and that is what the president should put in place right away. >> the requirement is a complacent procedure that will not only be fully independent, but will also restore public confidence. i ask the prime minister to look very objectively is the case whether the act of parliament would indeed enhance their credibility. i refer in particular to section 73 of the executive summary of the support where lord levinson says was an act of parliament, it would reassure the public with the basic requirements of independence and effectiveness, were met and continue to be met. i believe that is a very powerful argument and i would ask my honorable friend to consider it.

[inaudible conversations] >> that is absolutely right. let me explain why i have misgivings about leaping to this conclusion. once you start writing a piece of legislation that backs up an independent regulator, you have to run to that legislation what is its composition and the powers and one of its makeup. and you find pretty soon, i would worry that you have a piece of law that really is a piece of fresh regulatory law. that is an enormous step for us in this house of commons to take. and we have to think about it very carefully before we leap into this new approach. >> [inaudibleif we want people t the recommendations -- he can't

really pick and choose, you should access all the recommendations. [inaudible conversations] >> it is the job of this house of commons to consider a report and think what is right for this country to introduce. now, i have highlighted the issue of the changes of the data protection act because i am advised that those could have a very serious effect on investigative journalism. it would be quite wrong if we received a report of this magnitude and 75 minutes flat that we will implement every last piece of it without thinking of the consequences. a responsible government will have limits. the independent press is right. >> if the prime minister is clear as i am about reading paragraph 7076, mr. chairman makes absolutely clear that it

is essential that there should be legislation to underpin the self regulatory system. essential to be a very clear essential to be a very clear word. does he accept that? >> this is absolutely key argument needs to be had. what he is saying is that the statutory underpinnings is necessary to give effect to properly do this independent body. of course, what he intends is that it will be a very neat and a very small piece of statue. but in paragraph 71, for instance, it's a flaw like entities. except insofar as it would require regulatory body to have the power to direct the place of prominence of corrections and apologies for its what i am saying is once you have tried writing a law that provides statutory underpinning, what

this does, so if how it has somehow it is made of, you find pretty soon you have quite a big piece of law and that is the concern and that is the real rubric that we must elect. >> lord leveson doesn't have an answer himself to that question. this system is a voluntary system. i think this team answer applies to his system as well. >> john whittingdale, my friend agrees. but there's there is almost no universal agreement that we must have a stronger regulator and it must be seen to be independent and that it must be established as quickly as possible. however, can i very strongly welcome my friend's statement. the question of whether or not the regulator should have statutory underpinnings,

something the parliament needs to consider carefully. perhaps the effectiveness by this committee, we should only proceed to legislate if it becomes absolutely clear that it will not function properly without that. >> i think my honorable friend makes an important point. he has probably spent more time looking at this issue than almost any member of this house of commons. what matters is the enormous consensus there is about what independent regulation should consist of. the powers that are necessary. we all need proper investigation and prominent apologies. that is what victims deserve and that is what we must put in place. he is right, we need to think carefully before you pass legislation in the house. >> the prime minister, in his response, really is part of this house. i would say to him that this is not what the public expects of

us. it would be a dereliction of our duty as politicians if we did not establish the framework that is recommended by leveson. we would ask him to reconsider his position. >> i would like to say to the honorable lady that we have stood up for freedom and for free press year after year, century after century. to cross the rubicon without thinking about it very carefully first. that is why it is right to have a debate and also to listen people like you the select committee. he david david? >> welcome prime minister using statue. i will remind him that it was not a regulator or just highlighted the scandal.

it was a member of our free press. as such, it is one of our highest priority to make sure that whatever we do deserve the independence and the freedom of our press. that is the best part of our freedom. >> i think that he makes an important point. it it is very important in the regulation of it. but above all, it is an important step that we should consider before moving to statutory regulation. >> we cannot forget the victims in all of us. all the families and those who have suffered, terribly innocent victims. we absolutely support the freedom of the press.

it does need to be properly. the prime minister said, but he doesn't agree about leveson repeat recommendation and he talks of an alternative option. he gives an idea of what those options might be. and because there is a feeling amongst some, there are problems to deal with as well. >> there are a variety of opinions. i think we have to be frank about this. i think it is important to consider, as i say, a very big step is effectively casting a statute about the press in this country. there are many independent, non-statutory bodies in this country. those are very long-standing. not whether this body is backed by statute or not, can call editors and get some for each apologies. that is what you want to know. that is what we need to deliver. >> we need a rational and balanced approach. what we ought to consider if this is the 11th and proposes it

about the fun. >> to my thinking makes a at the my thinking makes a great point. isn't that what sets out many powers of the press council. and i think it is worth members setting the situation and thinking we want to have legislation about extent? which could then be amended at any moment by any politician at any future point. that is an important consideration. >> i would like to draw your attention. [inaudible conversations] that this latter point, that we all share an interest in the spirit and he reserved his

nation for political draft in this country because he believes that over the years, either because of the compromise where the frugality, we refuse to act. we now have an independent figure telling us what to do. surely, if we don't do what he says, which is provide a change in the law, there will be more and it will be our fault. >> i would also argue is another party problem is they are never sorry when they are wrong. [inaudible conversations] that means it is part of the conservative party and not a word of regret from him. what matters is putting in place a regulatory place that we can be proud of. the proper investigation, the apologies come and that needs to be done and it can be right away. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i welcome the report.

some of those smears were absolutely outrageous. >> i think my honorable friend makes an important point. we were told that he was not adjudicating on the bed and that smears were made and i think it's very important to read the report and see that he took the right decision in the right way. >> i declare an interest, mr. speaker, and i am instinctively opposed to statutory regulation of the press. would you agree that if that rubicon, it is up to the press accept the recommendations of listen to do that with all

priorities involved. what happens is a matter of this house and the political party and that of the press. >> i think the gentleman is right about this. the pressure should be to take the steps that everyone knows are necessary and are set out in huge detail in this report. that is the best way to avoid statutory regulations. but no one in this house should want to see that make our country less free. i think he speaks very clearly about that issue. >> mr. wilson. >> i know him to be a man of the highest integrity. the labour party should make an apology. 11 report shows to be absolutely

false. >> i think my friend makes an important point. we had listened to allegation after allegation, conspiracy of the conspiracy, each one puts to bed the comprehension of this report. >> i welcome this report. i also welcome the prime minister and his minute or two of the inquiry. i set that we have to wait for the outcome of the criminal investigation. [inaudible] part two of this investigation should go ahead because of the concerns about the police investigation because of the concerns about relationship

between a journalist and police officers. >> both are which against the criminal law and now the arrest has been made. strangely, lord leveson talks about the more rigorous aspect of the criminal law and instead goes off on building proposals for ultimately statutory underpin regulations which are largely relevant. can i congratulate my friend i'm not playing down that route, which would not solve the problem which gave rise to this inquiry. >> i am very grateful for my friends support.

these victims should not have had to wait for action the proper regulatory system to protect these people and prevented many more of them from becoming victims. [inaudible] in addition to full debate, should be a discussion of an independent implementation group shared by a judge who should be the best in the context of the law and the responsibilities of the parliament. >> i was carefully at what the

minister says in the proposals that he is making in this area. i recommend that the honorable general might want to look about what we have to say about the press minister as well. >> does my friend agree that we can't simply fanout these decisions with a blank check to someone who is unaccountable? would we further agree that these are the specific things that are part of the self-regulation? >> i agree with some of what my friend says, but i think it is important that we laid out clearly what is expected of the press in terms of the independent regulatory system that needs to be put in place. what we can't have is a continuation of the status quo. we need to have proper investigative arms of the regulatory body. we need to be able to insist on apologies and it needs to be more independent than and has

been to now. on behalf of the public, we have been entitled ask those things. if it was not put in place, we would have to take action. that is the key to this approach and we must take action. >> i wonder if we can achieve consensus on one of the recommendations, recommendation 47. where the consideration of proprietors to protect journalists refuse to go against what is being recommended. could we urge the proprietors to meet with those and whoever else to stop working on this into the contract? >> i am very happy to agree to that. many sensible recommendations can be put into place as quickly as possible. many of the recommendations about politicians and our relationships with the press.

the press doesn't have to wait for any further discussions, they can start putting this regulation in place right away. >> one of the recommendations is that protect the freedom of the press. would my honorable friend agree with me that we would be aliens who are tradition in this country. would he join with me to look at the loves and recommendations and see if there are things within them that they could act to their recommendations and to get on with the jobs that job so that we could restore robust confidence in the free press to visit a cornerstone of a free society. >> i think that we have to be tougher and we need is to say very clearly what has been proposed so far is progress and it is not good enough. we need more changes. the public wants more changes. the victims were more changes.

this is not the independent regulation we can say is right and that we are proud of. levinson points out that we need to close those gaps and there is nothing to stop them getting on the back straightaway be mapped thank you, mr. speaker. does the prime minister believed that we should be able to veto the appointment of the chairman of the press regulator? that is the model that many of his colleagues have signed up for with closed minds before levinson even reported. >> i think one of the points that he makes is that it needs to be more independent. not only was it not clear enough, it was an independent or not. this regulation needs to be independent regulation. >> i would like to praise the courage of the victims of the press intrusion.

does the prime minister respect the wishes of those victims in respect to the outcome of this inquiry? >> yes, of course. i think what is absolutely vital that we put in place a regulatory system that they can see has real teeth and we want to know independent and we know that it can be -- and you can completely come if you want to obsess about the issue, statutory underpinnings. there are many other issues about what makes good and strong and robust independent regulation. and that is what we should focus on. >> the prime minister [inaudible] wouldn't it have shown more respect to the work of the lord leveson in the victims on a

cross party basis and examine how recommendations in paragraph 17 could be implemented monolog. >> but i think every single aspect is fine about changes -- no. we have managed to last hundreds of years in this country without statutory regulation or mention of the press. we can continue without him we should.

[inaudible] effectively what is being said here is that the prime minister is are having a personal dinner with someone who happens to work with the local paper, then that would have to be recorded. this is the contribution to local life is without parallel.

no one agency whether you have a balanced and proper and sensible relationship with the press on. we put in place. i fear links from the party. thirteen years, this they didn't do a single thing about it. >> thank you, mr. speaker. lord justice is very clear to. specifically he says in paragraph 40 that there is no current option for the government to regulate and protect the clarity. what plans do you have to trust the media throughout a? >> i think this is an excellent point that it was brought out in the debate with my friend was looking at this. there is a gap in the law i

think these recommendations have got a lot of sense then we should study them carefully. >> mr. speaker, the prime minister must be congratulated for his courage in not doing the popular thing in standing up for the freedom of the press. on one specific small point, the prime minister referred to help close the governments and politicians have gone to the press. what do you think the government will do and an ugly statements? >> in my honorable friend last week on the very notable successes. [inaudible] system for today, not leak or a sentence or a word for it. [inaudible conversations]

>> the lord states that -- lord leveson states that the key appointment panel, which let the members of the crucial governing board, with the selected independently in the government and industry. so what is the prime minister invision? would make a final choice? >> i think this is a very important question. the justice in his report goes through a number of different alternatives. clearly, he prefers a you and the independence of those judging an independent regulatory system for appointing people to an independent system is absolutely vital. that is why i do have this concern about the role that he puts forward. and everything we do, whether it is for legislation or for other backstops, we need to make sure that the people involved in this and the people judging us are properly independent. >> mr. bob lachman.

>> before coming to this place, i spent 12 years and regulatory compliance. does my friend agree with me that the press should be bringing in the culture and compliance of compliance to the press? >> i think that makes sense. some of the things that were revealed during the inquiry were deeply disturbing. quite a lot has been done to address those.

>> with the prime minister consider very carefully the potential impact of investigations of individuals to shine a light on areas to be seen? >> i think we tried to treat journalists the same as everybody else for the purposes of protection, i think you'll find.

>> do they exonerate the relevant facts and more before advising him? [inaudible] >> [inaudible question] >> i think my honorable friend makes an important point. >> he says that he would implement leveson now that he was -- [inaudible] now that he appears that the recommendation of statutory underpinnings, could he say what

he believes lord justice leveson himself would finish? >> the principles come in terms of regulations that out by leveson, would need to include her look like are actually right and should be put in place. friendly, if we don't examine these proposals properly, as the relevant questions and go through a change to make a big difference for our country. we did if we do that, we would not be operating properly. >> this is section 7778, this is to be recommended by the justice committee and will the prime minister agree to do that probably? >> yes, i think we need to look at this carefully.

>> in terms of not taking action on the report, we need to look at what they make. >> will the prime minister asked him is probably? >> the issue whether the politician should be taken out of mergers come actually that's an happen.

>> [inaudible] summary of the report is excessive labor administrations have made no progress of addressing problems in the ethics of the press. we have made more progress in the last 2.5 years and we have made in the last 13 in addressing these issues.

>> [inaudible] legal system is too complex and costly. >> i think my honorable friend is right. access to justice is one of the issues that needs to be addressed. at the same time, as i've said before, it shouldn't be that the only way is to sue them or find or police them. because there should be a place where the civil point of view is

not enough. >> the lord leveson says that former deputy commissioner johnny did not reflect on his close friendship with the deputy of the news of the world before he decided in 2009 and 2010 about the hacking inquiries. the great shock of this report, the revelation of the very close relationship between the press and the police and politicians. and what is he going to do? he needs to assure the corrosive effects of cronyism are reduced. >> first of all, on the relationship between the press and politicians, they have taken unprecedented action between politicians and editors on a

quarterly basis. also, there should be a cooling off. >> more and more people are actually getting their needs here, which remains way outside any kind of regulation and that that, in many ways, is going to help the newspaper industry. >> i think she makes a good point. is brought out in the large volume report about the nation of change in the media industry. and i think that it does mean that you have to have a system of regulation in recognizing the changes in place.

>> most agree and are required to do that and using skills for some [inaudible] to we have a policy that we have been able to look for. >> this afternoon, lord leveson has called time. recommending the press and the politicians, and in order for it to work effectively, there needs to be careful balance between all the press.

>> what the lord has effectively said is that here's an opportunity to put in place independent regulation. if it isn't done, he says in his report regrettably that the one statutory regulation would have to be introduced. and i think that that is the right approach to take. any difference that i am putting forward, i think we need to look very carefully at what a one or two recommendations and how that should be done. >> extreme concentration in a very small number of companies, also, the control of the distribution system which often means that they cannot get part of the distribution system. that centers the ability of all of us in a wide variety of the

press. >> the press should be subject to competition policy and fully competitive. because of the growth of digital media, opinion, fact, newspapers online from the cost of distribution -- >> thank you. statutory regulation by the backdoor. >> i think my friend is right to raise this it issue. it may well turn out to be more than he wanted to cause though. you have to define what the body is and what the body does and what extent of it is. once you have done that, you are putting in place a statutory act that is easy to amend. this house of commons stop and

think before taking a sip of that magnitude. >> that was all letson said, he also goes on to talk about the broad base of the commission from which there would be people from the media. maybe there is an argument of the outcome as well. >> i appreciate the remarks. putting in place public defense, i understand that this could have a bad effect on investigative journalism. instead of just waiting for what

could be a profound change, it is worth stopping and that is why i don't think anybody can say i just accept this inquiry in full. actually having a look at what this means. >> enthusiasm for putting the government in perspective, does the prime minister think this is what you? >> we hope that our colleagues look at that very closely. >> the prime minister will recall the family that gave evidence to the inquiry. they have had grossly inaccurate reporting led to their son

taking his own life. putting in place a powerful independent regulator is one function or underpaid by statute. >> i think these are the top independent regulatory system that can really pull the press and can find those editors are called into account. there is a debate to be had about statutory underpinning, yes, or no, but the real debate is it does will be true about what needs to be done. >> does the press agree that this is a good example and the

newspapers to support this situation and just as he has an open mind, don't you agree that they should keep an open mind for this statute? >> i hope everyone will have an open mind as they read this report and read the conclusions about the terrible things have that have happened in the press. but above all, what i want editors to do is to engage properly with what levinson has said it needs to happen to the regulatory system. there is no need to wait for long conversations. what needs to be put in place, that starts right away. >> we have the cause for the cross party discussions to take place.

there will be no part of this going forward taking place. >> thank you, i welcome my friend's statement and attention to paragraph 74 and 75 of the report, or the lord justice does not come to a specific conclusion about what to do and newspapers not choose to sign up to any system or regulation. does my right friend agree with me that it is for this place not only to be the principal of underpinning the support, but to debate issues about the most appropriate regulator were there should be a separate regulator of print media. >> what the justice levinson

says is for the sake of completeness, have set out in the report the options that are open to the government to pursue now, that would include statutory regulation, and i think that is something we all want and the lord levinson wants to avoid as well. i hope that the leader of the opposition will think carefully about this is the big issue. because i think it requires some report. >> with the justice says about [inaudible] [inaudible] part of his argument with the government decision is unlawful.

>> in that time, i think it is page 1312, a memory, the memory, the issue with respect, because he was apparently having a conversation about the bed, he is asking for support of the election from and i think that is something that we might want to reflect upon. >> james morris, thank you, mr. speaker. that freedom is dependent on a responsible press. with the prime minister agree with me that self-regulation of the press does not have a suspicious history, and whatever conclusions are brought, they should enshrine a new culture of responsibility in the british media. >> the whole report has engendered a big debate in the

press -- that is to happen, but we also need the regulatory situation as well. >> i think the prime minister for standing up for our ancient liberties and refer him to the ominous phrase on page 1781 of the report. where it says in order to those incentives, i have recommended legislation and it is very important to see how it is not licensing and i wonder if the prime minister agrees with agreed with me that it is better to have an irresponsible but free press than to have a responsible state-controlled press? >> [inaudible] >> and i commend my honorable friend of ford the powers of speed reading.

we might want to look also at page 1780, which sets out the first part of the statutory underpinning which is a guarantee of media freedom, which is an attractive idea to write into the law. >> for more information on the leveson inquiry, go to leveson.com/uk. you can read the full report.

>> across party basis, it is clear on the initial views of the whole coalition. concerning the principles of the leveson report, which bodes well for the cross party talks are taking place for the first time later this afternoon. which in my view must establish an early and clear timetable for the decisions we must take so that the momentum for action is not lost. i would also like to thank the gentleman for his report. in my view, there are two big liberal principles at play in this debate.

on one hand, we headed and vigorous press -- a free press is not impressed that is free to bully innocent people or abuse grieving families. and what i want for us is to strike a better balance between these two liberal principles. so that our media can scrutinize the powers that be but cannot destroy innocent lives. so that the journalists in the press gallery cableless politicians to account for individuals and families in the public gallery, knowing that they have the right protections in place. >> i said that i would support what is workable.

i will talk about why i believe that is the case as far as the core proposal is concerned. namely self-regulation supported by new independent checks recognizes recognized in law. but i do not want to disguise the fact that i have specific concerns about pacific recommendations. for example, on some of the ideas concerning protection rules and on the suggestion that it should be independently verified the new press watchdog. we have a key role in regulating the content of broadcast media. i have yet to be convinced that it is best placed to take on this new light touch function with the print media as well. lord justice leveson, has himself, as in this report, said that this could be to build by a different body. on the basic model of a new self regulatory body, established with a change to to the law, and

principal in principle, i believe this can be done in a proportionate and workable way. i made the point if we could create a rigorous system of regulation, which covers all of the major players without any changes to the law, of course, of course we should consider that. but no one has yet come up with a way of doing that. lord justice leveson has considered these issues at length. he has found that changing the law is the only way to guarantee a system of self-regulation which seeks to cover all of the

press. the new regulator shouldn't just be independent for a few months or years. it should be independent for good. someone will need to check periodically for the independence of the regulator hasn't been weakened over time. in the report explains why that needs to be set out in law. as the lord justice himself said, this is not and cannot be characterized as statutory regulations of the press. this is a voluntary system based on incentives with a guarantee of proper systems. it is not a liberal state regulation.

there has been a lot of discussion about the risks of legislation and and there has n some key arguments missing from this debate. first, the press does not operate in some kind of lawless fashion. it has to abide by the law. in many instances it is protected by the law second, it has been suggested that using awful blur the line between politicians and the media. but we mustn't ignore the extent to which that line has already been blurred under the current system of self-regulation. it is the status quo, which allows such cozy relationships between political and media elites in the first place. let's not forget of the five chairs, three were serving a

party. so far from allowing greater overlap, they give us a chance to create a wall between politics and the press. as the report notes, there was already an example of statutory underpinning in the irish press council, which has been accepted by a number of uk newspapers. the daily mirror and the daily star. the sunday times, the mail on sunday in the sunday mirror are all members. they are all bullish irish editions. i have not yet heard these peepers complain of a press environment across the irish sea. of course, neither i nor anyone else any forms must be workable and proportionate.

and if they are not, i will be the first to sound the alarm. in that event, we would then need to consider how to make progress. because the absolute worst outcome in all of this would be for nothing to happen at all. mr. speaker, we mustn't now delay. like many people, i am impatient for reform. luckily, nothing i have seen so far in this debate suggests to me that we will find a better solution than the one which has been proposed. nor do i draw any hope from the repeated failure of peer self-regulation that we have seen over the last years. we need to get on with this without delay. we owe it to the victims of these scandals who have already waited too long for us to do the right thing. i am determined that we should not make them wait anymore.

i commend this to the house. >> thank you, mr. speaker. can i think the deputy prime minister for his excellent statement. as the deputy prime minister has said, it depends on there being a free press. a strong press must be a clean and pressed. it is a great tradition that was admired around the world and that wrongdoing of the press brought misery to families that are suffering. we often talk about walking a mile in someone's shoes. none of us would want to walk one step they will, by providing

for a proper system, protect individuals from abuse and unwarranted intrusion. we believe that this process is independent, both of politicians and of the press. we believe that that can only be achieved by legislation on the basis that was proposed. and will the deputy prime minister commit to that timetable, but this house should have the opportunity to debate and vote by the end of january of next year i'm taking this proposal forward. and we need to make this party vote to support the core proposals. we agreed that we should expect the legislation to complete passage by the end of the next

parliamentary session which starts in may of next year? we are about to go into all party talks. will you were sure this house he will not take this into the long grass? will you assure us that he will not -- you will not allow the press to have yet another lock-in at the last chance to lose. i agree with what the deputy prime minister said. but does he agree that what the prime minister said amounts to nothing more than an acceptance of the status quo. if the prime minister does not think again, he will have betrayed the victims. [inaudible conversations] >> i don't think that she should just sort of overlooked what are proper and legitimate misgivings are.

nonetheless, misgivings of the prime minister expressed about the legislation. i have no problem with a speedy timetable. obviously, that is one of the main things that we need to concentrate on this afternoon in the cross party talks. i strongly agree with her. the long grass is the last place that we would want to be or end up. ..

>> the differences i believe the case with legislation has been made, but of course acknowledge we now need to show how that can be delivered in a web part is the prime minister was what he has said while he's sitting next to me. but he's expressed his serious misgivings about only about the step of taking legislation, but has not entirely excluded the possibility the absence of other viable alternatives that in a nutshell of the differences of our two approaches. >> mr. jack straw. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the very important point made by his red old friend, does the deputy prime minister access to

the prime minister was incorrect when he talked about crossing the rubicon of press speculation into the law of the land because it was the press themselves in what became section 12 of the human rights act to the themselves explicitly asked a direct reference in that section to the press complaints codes. they are decided statutory underpinnings of what they're seeking to do. all the leveson is proposing is greater strength to the process which they began in 1898. >> what i think we can all agree on some are just as leveson places great emphasis in his report is none of us would've risen that the press abided by its own code. it would surprise eyewitnesses. when you read the code you thought it was excellent, brilliant. we need to make sure it is

enforced. of course that is what the debate outcomes. it's the means to the end. the application of the principles set out by lord justice leveson. everyone agrees the code itself was well drafted and would not lead to the problems arisen in the first place. but the debate is hardly make absolutely sure that is done in a way which is independently monitored and endures over time. my views for justice leveson has made the case how that can be done. but the separate finder which the house will address to. >> the deputy prime minister agrees one of the greatest expressions of liberty in the world is the first amendment to the american constitution, a measuring statute and that it also agreed with legal restrictions on copyright, which has in this country provides a

statutory framework and should not reassure convert the summit but there's a possible legal framework which guarantees freedom of the press and the rights of individuals? >> i accept there's a big philosophical difference between liberals who have sites for you and try freedom with the herd into her very people who were abused by the powerful and libertarian torch believes freedom should be on tremor of an unrestrained. it's not a philosophy of believe in. it's a one eyed approach to freedom and of course the press is always operated within the context of the law. i think it is creating a strawman to imply a thought is always inimical to the excess of freedom in the press. the press is constrained and

indeed protect it in many respects by the law for generations. >> mr. speaker, the detail of the new regulatory body is critically important. it's the deputy prime minister accept that it is only within the legal underpinning for the public support that is so crucial to a new regulator is kerry? >> i've expressed my own views about the assertion that lord justice leveson makes about that. as i say come and this is the debate of the means upon men. let's dwell for a minute on the thought that i run this afternoon appears to agree which you need is tough, independent regulation or people are properly protected when things go wrong. the debate is whether legislation is an indispensable means to deliver that are not. >> i congratulate my red old friend for anticipating what was going to be in the leveson

report and then disagree with my red old friend, the prime minister. [laughter] can i say to him, how he thinks such an underpinning would've prevented what happened in the past and i commend to him the book of the laughter of triumph is the one that got laughed out of practical use. i think we'll tell a sense of proportion object arrays of newspapers such as those who campaign stephen lawrence lemieux certainly broke rules of what would've happened then. >> as justice leveson himself if he doesn't think the system incentives he's offering to the price of venturing into this new system to work without law. secondly he thinks that simulate can establish a process of verifying this new -- independence of the new self-regulatory system entered and crucially should be additional protections in law

and training the freedom of the press. i would ask in return to accept it is a perfectly rational approach to suggest these things can be held in balance and it's not a zero-sum game between freedom on one hand and regulation which protects the vulnerable on the other. [inaudible] -- leveson report to be kicked in the press who just happened to every single report. if you can't pursue the prime minister, will he and his party work with us and conservatives to support the leveson report to implement as quickly as possible? >> the prime minister and leader of the opposition myself will talk this afternoon in a positive spirit to seek to train tiny cross party party approach on this issue because i think people would lose patience is decisively turned a very important issue, which is a serious issue, which has been treated with the seriousness it deserves this afternoon.

so i want to avoid that. i want to find a solution together, which not only answers demands of the times, but also provides a solution to the country. after two and half years of coalition and sitting the whole country. >> mark radcliffe. >> is the deputy prime minister speak to the government? and what are the implications stated today that cabinet responsibility? >> clearly in a coalition government there is no collect this if it's not agreed by all parts. i really do think -- i know people get hot under the collar and westminster about these doctrines. the people in the country find a perfectly normal in a government there's two issues because there's two parties don't have the same view. you've got to be relaxed and grown-up about explaining that to the house and indeed the

public and has since been set out come the seek to resolve them in the national interest. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the deputy prime minister has spoken about the 60 years failure of self-regulation. may i tell him that is precisely where the public and particularly the victims will not be able to accept the prime minister's position today given that my right honorable friend might not be able to do spade a governor, i wish the deputy prime minister for success in trying to bring him around to his point of view. [laughter] >> it is a daily undertaking and on many issues. i win some money they send. but look, can i just say again we're not going to get out of this cross party talks but we don't want if we don't just first-degree that we all want the code, which the press itself is supposed to abide by properly

respect it and the principles set up in the justice leveson respected. if we keep that in mind and make sure absolutely the object it is delivered, then we will do a bacon good thing for the country future generations. >> dr. julian hopper peered >> we've just heard to the 60 years of the failure of self-regulation of the five chancellors on the labour and conservative government has not been solved in a two-party relationship to politics in the press of use of the dems. but it's my right honorable friend to will make some progress? >> i think he wants you to say other than the fact the liberal democrats are in it, i think it was the right and we took the decision collectively government to take this unprecedented step of asking lord justice leveson with help from the panel members to look it around. i mean, he is very white terms

of reference and completed his work in full and i think the sheer breadth of what he's been asked to vanessa davis revealed in the volume of what is produced. >> sturkie fast. >> as the prime minister has been a set of this inquiry was in two parts. he didn't mention part 2 in a statement. can i assume those that he fully supports part 2, which will do with the relationship between these in their investigations they have conducted? and does he agree with me that what is vital to speak at the in london all the resources they need city operations to roster and elveden can be completed as soon as possible looks like a timetable of three years. >> on the first point, the prime minister did refer to part 2 and reiterated that as a government or attitude as a whole has not changed for the day it was

established. he also explained part 2 is affected by the criminal investigations being conducted right now. as far as the criminal investigations, of course we will endeavor where we can to make sure resources are provided can be completed as quickly as possible. >> mr. speaker, the first duty of the prime minister is to support the prime minister. we've seen something that never happened before in parliamentary history. without the doctrine doctrine of collective responsibility swished away by the deputy prime minister. how can he spend 25 minutes criticizing my right honorable friend and remain in the government collects is he considering resigning? >> mr. speaker, he and i had this exchange countless times.

i just really think he still struggles to get coalition. his party didn't win the election. my party didn't win the election. so you have the government of two parties, neither of who won the election. you have to compromise. that is different to previous one party. it may need to anomalies and glitches in this place which she finds the reality of coalition governments and expectable repeat in the future. >> thank you or mr. speaker. all actions of the deputy prime minister and his government take if these places do not establish the new system? >> it is incredibly important that the newspaper industry listening to the debate he'd would ever produce that come with the prime minister himself said that the ball is in their court to make the first move showing they can propose that

kind of self-regulatory institution which would be independently verified one way or another as soon as possible. it would be an extraordinary failure to respond to that invitation if the price for not to take up that opportunity for their own good because i think everybody knows, everybody cares about her grace british press and other public needs to be assured they will abide by higher standards in the future. >> speaker, given the extremes we could choose here, one is a dangerously politicized regulation of the press, the other is the editors are allowed to continue to regulate themselves. isn't investing for us to do to accept the advice of an independent commission process along and heard so much evidence to his long to make the reports that we don't give the big guns of the worst example of

journalism the justice they deserve. >> i agree with the basic premise that if the essential insights were just as leveson good ones, we should implement them. i have to say i disagree with some people who were implied earlier that it should be adopted completely in its entirety. there's a lot of very dense complex stuff in here and i've give you to consider the implications of their extensive data protection. i'm no expert, but it's obvious that will scrutinize properly as a parliament. so yes i believe we should be adopting leveson and his insights and what he's seeking to deliver. but i don't think we should therefore suspend any critical faculties on details which huckabee got ready. >> nigel dawes. >> is very clear leveson does

not propose any statutory regulation and no one in this house wants to see that in any way shape or form. isn't it very, very important over the coming days and weeks that nobody outside or in here implications tries to frame in those terms. this is getting proper redress for those abused in a wrong way. it is not crossing any rubicon. >> i think were justice leveson as ridiculous as that to that is not advocating statutory regulations which the whole house would recoil from. he's trying to do something which is ingenious, but is materially different because it's based on voluntary participation. none the less voluntary participation from all parts of the press. as for the detail and design of

the incentives offered to the press are incredibly important. >> john barron. >> is your speaker, i suggest the liberal nor democratic and accordingly, does he understand the reason so many big feel they are unable to seek justice through the legal system, which is often considered too complex and too costly? what is he going to do within the coalition government to try and put that right? >> i don't accept the underlying premise that all of this can be settled by courts in the criminal justice system. kate and gerry mccann have their privacy abuse in the most vile accusations, which they couldn't have possibly remedied through the law. you should read gerry mccann is evidence of you think it's undemocratic or liberal to suggest who should set up a

system. gerry mccann was basically told sorry there's nothing we can do. surely you have to have a heart of stone not to accept their son series latecomer seriously wrong when there's nothing which helps kate and gerry mccann. i strongly refute it is undemocratic to help them. >> given what the deputy prime minister said the solicitor of the opposition early minister became a marginal figure on this issue. they're for the deputy prime minister works to find when possible, ground in this area impress regulation. >> the prime minister has initiated the cross party talks will happen very shortly and i hope its goodwill we can really make a progress on them. he mentions the irish model.

there are similarities between the irish model and what were justice leveson is suggesting. the irish model in many ways is a direct form of statutory establishment of the regulators and the indirect verification of a self established regulator set up by the press. there's quite an important difference between the two, though as i said earlier it is remarkable that a number reddish newspapers operate as far as i can make up relatively comfortably under the law exacting slightly more liberal system which exists across the irish sea. >> john hemming. >> why do we need legislation and licensing for news printed come to not be displayed on computer screens. >> were justice leveson said this afternoon there sent them different about the impact of

news printed in our newspapers then there isn't a the great surrogate ecosystem of the digital news and on the internet. he's not making any claims. but one form of regulatory remedy is applicable to other media. he's very, very specifically dealing with the abuses in the newspaper industry. because it doesn't apply to other media therefore we should do nothing. >> thank you, mr. speaker. can i welcome the stands the deputy prime minister is taken nonacceptance given it a lot of thought. because the deputy prime minister tell the house how he proposes to give to the news when prime ministers fundamentally opposed to bring for the new to underpin a truly independent system of regulation while he urged the prime minister to allow beals to report forward to the house to have a free democratic vote on

a? >> the prime minister expressed misgivings about taking a significant step. of course this is the kind of thing you talk about in the cross party discussions. but if we all immediately start digging trenches and dig your heels in, the worst of all outcomes will happen, which is nothing at all and i will work hard to prevent it from being the outcome of all of this. >> during the prime minister's statement may suggest that were justice leveson had called time at the last chance to leave. this my right honorable friend agree that implementing the plague of the report we risk any changes brought forward just been seen as a last chance from an industry failed miserably to regulate itself effectively. >> my quote from john major, who said in his evidence to lord justice leveson said choir, on

this occasion is the politicians who were in the last chance to learn and this is a test matches for the price. it is a test for this place and a test for a solid to find a cross party approach to this. this is all much better done on a cross party basis rather than becoming a subject of a political point scoring. i think justice levinson has made the case for legislation is necessary to administer a system very well his report. i keep stressing i don't know what the legislation would look like and support you get the details as well as the principal rate. >> i commend the deputy prime minister for this statement and the question this afternoon. and can you clarify the way he intends to adopt the same principle on this issue as he has on the boundary proposals that where he disagrees with his

colleagues, liberal democrat ministers will go through the lobby and appointing a principle where they agree with us. >> that is in agreement with the opposition. look, i'm not going to repeat what i said in this house before and boundaries, but i will except of course that coalition government you will get cases. this is one instance where it's perfectly fair to a normal to the house to say in it levelheaded way, these are the differences of the coalition doesn't mean it homogenize government is somehow eliminated. >> i'm not sure he was present in the chamber at the start of this statement. if not the nation will have to wait for another occasion. >> went through the honorable member. >> i think speaker.

given my policy appears to be split on this issue judging by lord justice leveson given the coalition is clearly spent on this issue is the deputy prime minister share my hope that the various measures are going to be discussing over the coming week should be put to the house preferably in a free vote? >> in the first instance, when we get to that, we should seek a cross party approach to dealing with these things. i don't think we should be ashamed of their star how do small parties on something of a principled importance. i hope we don't allow those differences if you could become an alibi for inaction. that would be the worst thing of all. >> you're right honorable friend will remember acutely having the event of the data protection act of the checks and balances created within it when we first

brought together of european direct to in the original act. i would like to ask the deputy prime minister the same question i asked the prime minister. look at recommendation 57 in the summary recommendations, which creates an information commission, including members of the media. doesn't that provide a vehicle to remove his concerns about some of leveson's comments about data protection? >> the idea he's making the commissioner into an information commission -- i'm no great expert in the area, but it doesn't seem to me in and of itself to be the worrisome part of the proposals. i think she is worth bearing in mind a further new european data protection legislation in the pipeline on a separate

timetable. so just to take that as one example is you would be putting the cart before the horse if he were to do these data protection visions and reinvented all in a directory. that is the kind of detail i can get into very rapidly. >> i've never forgotten john donnell. >> by the way, i support the idea of separate statements. i would've done that in the past myself. [laughter] i think i know the answer to this. i think i know the answer to this, but because it will strengthen the message message, could you confirm that the prime minister is now the act to start work immediately on the introduction of the conscience clause into the contracts of journalists? >> yes, i think that is one important part of the long list

of issues that proprietors and editors no need to dress themselves to. and by the way, since you mentioned, the dj has come out unambiguous in favor of a model of statutory underpinnings. they are working journalists who cares much as anybody else in this house about the freedom of the press themselves recognize might be the right way. >> now, background analysis on the leveson investigation into british media practices. this comes courtesy abcs newsnight. >> good evening. seven times in less than 70 years, were justice leveson said turkish government has tried to figure out what to do about the press. this time afterward than 600 statements or witness appearances plus that made the arrests and other related

inquiries, the leveson report seeks a balance press with the freedom of ordinary citizens not to be produced, bullied or harassed or if they are to find a suitable mechanism to complain and seek regress. leveson was absolutely clear on this point. many victims do not bother complaining or fighting newspapers which want them because they are too frightened in there for me into submission. we devote much of the program to a could be the biggest change to the present generation in the political fight over whether he knew lott is indeed necessary. david grossman begins our coverage. >> this is a huge inquiry in the report is equally as big. four volumes, 1987 pages of densely argued prose. this is not one story. if you want to know about the mail, turn to page 572. there's gordon brown and his sense ailments, 564.

and what it peers morgan knew about fun hacking, page 615. >> register with this fast work, we cannot draw back and look at some of the big themes here. one of the central wants us the question of her dress. how to change the balance of power to give more rights to those unfortunate innocent individuals for whatever reason find themselves in the process of the press frenzy, their lives trash and chased and bullied the most very wealthy indeed, nothing they can do about it. >> a persuasive and 30 club months were justice leveson bed at his statement it report. he would take no questions that statement if ever for the speaker themselves. his inquiry was triggered by victims of the press and weber at the reports